The Us Constitution: Strengthening Slavery's Institution

The US Constitution, drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788, is considered by many to be the country's founding document and a cornerstone of democracy. However, its protection and institutionalization of slavery are seen as its biggest flaw. The Constitution did not use the words slave or slavery but included provisions that implicitly protected the institution, such as the Three-Fifths Clause, the Fugitive Slave Clause, and the ban on Congress ending the slave trade for twenty years. These measures ensured that slavery remained a national issue and embedded it deeper into the fabric of American governance. The framers of the Constitution believed that concessions on slavery were necessary to maintain political unity, but this compromise created a moral and legal crisis that would contribute to the Civil War and the eventual abolition of slavery through constitutional amendments.

Explore related products

Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification

$17.1 $19.99

Class Conflict, Slavery, and the United States Constitution

$19.77 $28

A Slaveholders' Union: Slavery, Politics, and the Constitution in the Early American Republic

$32 $31.99

Slavery’s Fugitives and the Making of the United States Constitution

$36.02 $45

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

The Three-Fifths Clause

The compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. Pinckney suggested that a "House of Delegates" be determined through the apportionment of "one Member for every thousand Inhabitants, 3/5 of Blacks included." The Convention unanimously accepted that representation in the House of Representatives would be proportional to the relative state populations but initially rejected the inclusion of the black population in this calculation.

The Three-Fifths Compromise also increased the number of pro-slavery legislators and had an impact on the presidential election of 1800, with historian Garry Wills speculating that without the additional slave state votes, Jefferson would have lost. The Compromise also influenced other policies and events leading up to the Civil War, including Jackson's Indian removal policy and the Kansas-Nebraska Bill.

Some argue that the Three-Fifths Compromise ultimately helped end slavery, even if it was not directly related to the abolition movement. The Compromise was necessary for creating a union between the Northern and Southern states, and this union created a political climate that valued free labor, which was at odds with slavery.

Fugitive Slave Clause

The Fugitive Slave Clause, also known as the Slave Clause or the Fugitives From Labour Clause, was a provision in the US Constitution that allowed slaveholders to recover their enslaved property from another state. This clause, found in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, stated that:

> "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

The clause did not explicitly mention the words "slave" or "slavery", but it formed the basis for the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850, which gave slaveholders the legal right to recapture their enslaved persons. This clause was a compromise made during the Constitutional Convention, where the issue of slavery was hotly debated. The Southern states wanted to ensure that they could retain their way of life, while the Northern states, many of which had abolished slavery, did not want to become safe havens for runaway slaves.

The Fugitive Slave Clause remained in effect until the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, rendering the clause unenforceable. However, the impact of this clause and the Fugitive Slave Acts cannot be overstated. They galvanised anti-slavery sentiments in the North, with many Northerners refusing to comply with the Acts and instead aiding runaway slaves. The Acts also resulted in the illegal capture and enslavement of free Black people, as bounty hunters kidnapped free Blacks and sold them into slavery.

The Fugitive Slave Acts were finally repealed in 1864, during the Civil War, but they had already caused significant harm and contributed to the growing polarisation between the North and South.

Omission of the word slave

The omission of the word "slave" in the US Constitution can be attributed to several factors and had significant implications for the institution of slavery in the country.

Firstly, it reflected the founding fathers' reluctance to address slavery directly. At the time of the Constitution's drafting in 1787, slavery was a widespread institution in the United States, particularly in the Southern states, where it was heavily relied upon for labour-intensive crops like tobacco. Many of the founding fathers believed that slavery would eventually phase out due to declining crop productivity and soil exhaustion. As such, they chose to sidestep the issue, considering it a temporary fixture that would die out on its own.

Secondly, the omission of the word "slave" was influenced by the conflicting interests of the Northern and Southern states. The Northern states advocated for universal freedoms and equality, while the Southern states employed restrictive language that limited rights to "freemen," accommodating slavery. To secure support for a strong central government, the framers of the Constitution made concessions and avoided explicit references to slavery, instead using euphemisms like "Person held to Service or Labour." They prioritized political unity over immediate abolition, hoping that a strong central government would eventually have the power to eradicate slavery.

Additionally, the omission reflected the founding fathers' moral qualms about slavery. Many of them believed that slavery contradicted the natural rights of all individuals and was morally reprehensible. By omitting the word "slave," they attempted to avoid the moral confrontation associated with directly addressing the institution of slavery. They did not want the permanent moral stain of slavery on the document.

However, this omission had the unintended consequence of entrenching slavery further. The Constitution included clauses that implicitly protected slavery, such as the Three-Fifths Clause, which gave the South extra representation in the House of Representatives, and the Fugitive Slave Clause, which required states to return fugitive slaves. These provisions ensured that slavery remained a national issue and contributed to a moral and legal crisis that would lead to the Civil War.

In conclusion, the omission of the word "slave" in the US Constitution was a complex decision influenced by political, economic, and moral factors. While some believed slavery would eventually fade out, others prioritized unity and compromise. Unfortunately, this omission had the effect of strengthening the institution of slavery by embedding it deeper into the fabric of American governance and delaying its eventual abolition.

Explore related products

The U.S. Constitution and Secession: A Documentary Anthology of Slavery and White Supremacy

$29.99 $37.99

Creating a More Perfect Slaveholders' Union: Slavery, the Constitution, and Secession in Antebellum America (Constitutional Thinking)

$23.22 $59.99

Lincoln and the Politics of Slavery: The Other Thirteenth Amendment and the Struggle to Save the Union (Civil War America)

$56.51 $27.95

A Necessary Evil?: Slavery and the Debate of the Constitution

$29.99

A House Divided: Slavery and American Politics from the Constitution to the Civil War

$21.71 $32.95

A Glorious Liberty: Frederick Douglass and the Fight for an Antislavery Constitution

$19.95 $19.95

Framers' moral qualms

The US Constitution, in its original form, did not contain the words "slave" or "slavery" within its text. However, it dealt directly with American slavery in at least five of its provisions and indirectly protected the institution in several others. The framers of the Constitution believed that concessions on slavery were necessary to gain the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. They were convinced that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, southern states like South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union.

Many of the framers, including some slaveholders, harbored moral qualms about slavery. They believed that slavery was morally wrong and would eventually die out. They did not want the moral stain of slavery on the Constitution, so they avoided using the word "slave" and instead referred to slaves as "persons." They also used euphemisms like "Person held to Service or Labour" to sidestep moral confrontation while preserving the institution.

During the Constitutional Convention, some delegates spoke out against slavery. George Mason, a Virginia delegate and slaveholder, said that slavery discouraged arts and manufactures and corrupted slaveholders. He believed that slavery brought down ""the judgment of heaven on a country." Luther Martin of Maryland, also a slaveholder, argued that the slave trade was contrary to America's republican ideals and dishonored the American character. Benjamin Franklin, a former slaveholder, and Alexander Hamilton, born in a slave colony, became members of anti-slavery societies.

The framers' conflicted stance toward slavery led them to deliberately avoid direct language about the institution in the Constitution. They knew that slavery was a moral and legal crisis that would cause future conflict, as Madison wrote: "It seems now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lies not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences form the line of discrimination."

While the framers may have had moral qualms about slavery, they prioritized political unity over abolition. This resulted in key compromises like the Three-Fifths Clause and the Fugitive Slave Clause that protected slaveholding interests. These constitutional compromises entrenched slavery and contributed to the moral and legal crisis that would lead to the Civil War.

Southern economic dependence

The Southern economy was heavily dependent on slavery, particularly in the cotton-growing regions and slave trading. Slaves were essential for cultivating and harvesting cash crops such as cotton, which became a lucrative commodity. This economic dependence on slavery led to the expansion of plantations and the concentration of wealth among plantation owners, who relied on slave labour to maximize their profits.

The Southern colonies depended on slaves for their economy, society, and personal needs. Even Southerners who did not own slaves still depended on the institution, as it made them feel better about their place in society. The Southern economy was fuelled by human slavery, with cash crops of tobacco, cotton, and sugarcane. The Southern states became the economic engine of the burgeoning American nation.

The reliance on slavery varied between different regions of the Southern colonies. The lower South, with its cotton-growing areas, became increasingly dependent on slaves due to the rise of King Cotton. In contrast, the upper South, centred around the tobacco industry, focused more on slave trading to support its agricultural endeavours. This diversity in reliance on slavery resulted in distinct social and economic dynamics between plantation society and regions involved in slave trading.

The invention of the modern cotton gin in 1793 provided a more sustainable and economically viable crop for the South. This changed the belief that slavery would die out naturally in the South as it had done in the industrialized North. With the cotton gin, the South was poised to expand its cotton-based economy. More land was needed for cultivation, so the number of plantations expanded and moved west into new territories. Production exploded, and by the start of the Civil War, the South was producing 75% of the world's cotton.

The Southern economy was so dependent on slavery that it was "politically impossible" for the Framers to abolish the institution. This economic dependence resulted in constitutional compromises that entrenched slavery and contributed to the coming of the Civil War.

Frequently asked questions